Jesus Was a Socialist

Yesterday afternoon, iconoclast and keen skeptic Spartacus sent out an email I was intrigued to read and think on:

-----Original Message-----
From: "Spark" le Klaus [mailto:SpartaCuss@Yabbadoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 1:30 PM
To: Aging Child
Subject: Jesus Was a Socialist

Post election '08 and so many "Christians" are still having panic attacks over the "S word" (Socialism). The sad thing is, Obama is not a socialist, so they are worrying themselves over nothing.

What's so wrong about being a socialist anyway? Let them try to wrap their heads around this concept:

JESUS WAS A SOCIALIST

Think about it.

I found the following article quite interesting:

Biblical Basis for Liberal Politics

By David Chandler

[Originally published in the Tule River Times "Left in America" column.]

The "Religious Right" (Moral Majority, Christian Coalition, etc.) gets so much media attention for its conservative political activism that a casual observer would think conservative Christianity somehow equates to conservative politics. This is not the case. In fact many people with left-leaning political views find a solid basis for their positions in the Bible. There are many sides to this topic, but we will limit our focus to attitudes toward the rich and the poor.

America is as much an economic phenomenon as it is a nation. It is built on a system whose driving force is the profit motive. Our economy blatantly rewards greed. In classic economic theory greed is good. A person who is motivated by greed will create, as unintended byproducts, benefits for everyone, such as employment and the development of new goods and services. Let the rich get richer, the saying goes, and the benefits will "trickle down" to the rest of us. "A rising tide raises all boats." Under a pure capitalistic system, the government keeps hands off and allows the market to decide how the money flows. The problem is, as we have found in this era of deregulation, the money flows to the top. [The original article contained a variant on the graph shown on the L-Curve web site.] Tampering with the market system to redistribute the wealth or assure that the poor are protected is labeled "socialism."

[Take a moment and have a look at the data and analysis on the above website!]

By these standards Jesus was a socialist.

Jesus spoke remarkably often about wealth and poverty. To the poor he said, "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God," (Luke's version). To the rich he said, "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth," and "go, sell what you have, and give to the poor." When the rich turned away from him because they couldn't follow his command, he observed, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

For Jesus, helping the poor and the outcast is not optional: it is the essence of what it means to love God. In the parable of the last judgment, he welcomes the righteous into heaven, saying, "I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me." When the righteous answered that they didn't recall doing any of these things, he said, "as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."

We are to "forgive our debtors" and "give to everyone who begs from you." But don't handouts contribute to moral decay? Jesus was more concerned about the moral decay in those who are so attached to their wealth that they would hoard it for themselves. In our better moments, most of us recognize that giving does not corrupt. We sacrifice to give good things to our children, and do our best to provide them with years of carefree existence as they grow up. We do this to give them a sense of security and a foundation for growth. People who have been devastated by misfortune, or for whatever reason are down and out, may need even more help because they may not have what it takes to recover on their own. Many of us will help a friend in hard times, even though we know we will never be repaid. It is when dealing distantly with people in the abstract that we fall back on the "moral decay" argument.

What's wrong with trickle-down economics? Every time I hear that phrase I think of the story Jesus told about a rich man and the beggar Lazarus "who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table." Needless to say, the story ends with Lazarus going to a better place than the rich man. Trickle-down theory is about crumbs. Those who say we should settle for crumbs would make us a nation of beggars.

Greed may be a driving force for the economy, but Jesus saw it is as destructive to community. Greed may leave a few crumbs behind for the poor, and it may do some unintended good, but it destroys compassion. Compassion is in short supply in our society today, where workers are being downsized in the name of efficiency, prisons are being expanded to insulate society from its underclasses, and the middle class is abandoned by the rich to fight it out with the poor for the table scraps.

Jesus' response to economic inequality is very direct: we are to share the wealth. I once heard a talk about world hunger. The point was that we produce far more food than is needed to feed everyone on earth. The problem is not lack of supply; it is maldistribution. Many people are simply too poor to buy the food they need. This talk gave me a new perspective on the story of the feeding of the 5,000. Jesus was out in the desert followed by a huge crowd. The disciples were concerned that it was getting late in the day and they didn't have enough food to feed the crowd. My suspicion is that Jesus sensed there was plenty of food in the crowd, but whereas some had plenty, others had nothing. Sensing an opportunity to make a point, he instructed his disciples to take their five loaves and two fish and distribute them freely to the crowd. By the sheer audaciousness of this act he induced those with food to join him in giving it away. The result is everyone was fed that day with twelve baskets left over. If Jesus simply did a magic trick and made food appear, what's the point? Whoopee! He's divine. He's not like us. But if, by his act of giving away all he had in the face of the overwhelming crowd, he demonstrated the power of a sharing community, he achieved a real miracle! Sharing is a lesson we especially need to learn today.

[Note: I don't buy into the stupid, deconstructionist assertion that at Jesus' and the Apostles' example and encouragement, everyone threw together their own fish sandwiches; my mind and heart can easily wrap around the concept of the miraculous. But this matter of faith/belief is tangential to the issue of Jesus and socialism.]

Is concern for the poor to be simply a private matter to be handled by charity, or does it have anything to do with politics or government? The Bible calls upon the rulers to create a just society. In a democracy, we are the rulers. We have the power to make the rules. The actions of the nation are extensions of our own actions. By our active participation or passive consent, we share responsibility for what our nation does in our name. We have inherited a system that works efficiently to produce tremendous wealth, but fails to distribute that wealth equitably. It neglects the poor and it corrupts the rich. On both counts it destroys community. A decent life for all is a matter of simple justice, not charity! There are remedies that will make the system work better in the interests of all the people, but it takes active political involvement to bring them about.

Is this "bleeding heart" liberalism? You bet it is! Jesus is the definitive bleeding heart, and he calls us to follow him.

For anyone who has studied and meditated on the life and teachings of Jesus – or even someone merely vaguely familiar with them – the argument and rationale are inarguable. This perspective on Him is awesome.

So being the socially-conscious Christian I am, I forwarded the article to a couple very conservative Christian friends to see how they might respond. This can be likened to poking a very short stick deep into the tiger's cage. Surprisingly, Anon E. Mouse answered very quickly – generally I don't hear from her when I send "left-wing" stuff her way… although I do rather regularly receive from her plenty of garbage from the other end of the spectrum, most of which I delete… unless I feel like poking another stick.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mouse, Anon E. [mailto:AEMouse@SOL.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 4:34 PM
To: Aging Child
Subject: RE: Jesus Was a Socialist

No, Gene, Jesus did want us to help (key operative word) our fellow man, I cannot believe that He wanted us to give and give to those who do nothing but take and won't do a days work for a days wages.  I see nothing wrong with the Puritan work ethic.  I don't get paid for doing nothing yet part of my wages go to those not willing to work.

I can testify from personal and professional knowledge that Ms. Mouse is indeed a hard-working woman. She has a big heart, too… it just doesn't bleed a whole lot. Still, since she was kind enough to clarify further her feel for this issue, I felt I needed to counterpoint:

-----Original Message-----
From: Aging Child [mailto: AGeneChilde@YouWho.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 5:00 PM
To: ' Mouse, Anon E.'
Subject: RE: Jesus Was a Socialist

Hi, Anon!

I hope all's well by you guys (and kids and pups) at the farmstead.

I don't disagree with you there, but how are we to tell… say, if faced by a total stranger hitting us up for a buck? Or someone passed out on the street? We just don't know, and this may be where we are told in the Bible not to judge. We can't ignore the needy because some small percentage of their number are lazy, or/and parasitical.

Go straight back to Jesus's bare words, and look also in Acts – where people in the early-Church community were designated to take care of the poor and widowed – and at the Letter of James (especially the second chapter) – where Christian faith without these deeds is, bluntly, called "dead". Jesus didn't put injunctions on His calls to us to see to the needy among us. At least, not in every Bible I've read.

If there is a need, we must fill it, or be hypocrites as Christians. And just feeding the poor isn't enough, nor is even helping them make ends meet. Retraining the unemployed for new types of work is often called for (e.g., Detroit and the Rust Belt), and implementing some functional means of bringing these people back into a productive segment of society. This is the old push of "A hand up, not a handout", with which I agree.

The Puritan work ethic is quite sound, but what about where there is no work? And there'll always be parasites, but why shut everybody out due to the handful of bad apples? I think you and I agree that there has to be accountability for those who receive assistance… let's just not make the problem all the more dire.

Disappointingly, yet typically, Anon did not respond further – I'm assuming she left work early yesterday and had today off. Just so he could see what was going on with the original article, plus to elicit a read from the farther left, I'd bcc'd Spartacus on my note back to friend Mouse; I followed up with a note to him:

-----Original Message-----
From: Aging Child
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 4:22 PM
To: "Spark" le Klaus
Subject: RE: Jesus Was a Socializer

Yow!

Coincidentally, I was listening to Neil Young's "Sugar Mountain" while reading this article. I forwarded it (the email, not the MP3 track) right away to "Anon E. Mouse" and a couple other conservative friends (including brother Sarge, who tends to favor the Repugnicant ticket, and the tired old Reaganesque tinkle-on economics).

I'm mulling blogging this – will allow me to resume some religion-ruminations I'd like to put up soon. Any thoughts/background you'd care to add? You'll have the soapbox for this posting.

Regards,

Freddy Engels

I'd hoped to lean on his greater depth of knowledge/familiarity with economic and political issues. And Sparks never disappoints; he wrote back this evening (something's off with his email-clock, though):

-----Original Message-----
From: "Spark" le Klaus [mailto:SpartaCuss@Yabbadoo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 12:18 PM
To: MT2mb
Subject: Re: Jesus Was a Socialist

"I don't want my hard earned to go to a bunch of lazy, good for nothing deadbeats!"

That is the automatic, guaranteed reaction when mentioning even the mildest, semi-socialistic ideas to any of the right wing persuasion. How about trying to think a little bit out of that worn out old box before reacting with that worn out reactionary response? Not everyone who is in need of help is a lazy, good for nothing bum. For the past 40 or so years, wages for the middle and working classes in the USA have either stagnated and/or declined (adjusted for cost of living). During the same period, income for the wealthy has more than tripled (adjusted for cost of living). Today the average American worker is working longer hours for the same or less money (adjusted for cost of living), and with fewer benefits than he/she did 30-40 years ago. The concept of "job security" is a joke. The risk of your job being outsourced, downsized, etc is great. Losing one's job, having yourself or a family member come down with a serious illness is a dire catastrophe in this economic climate. Yet with all this, American productivity measured per worker has never been higher. That doesn't sound like a bunch of lazy deadbeats to me! Why should working Americans be denied a fair piece of the pie?

Had the minimum wage kept pace with the cost of living, it would be over $20 per hour today. Conservatives are fond of talking about family values--what kind of family values can you have when mom and dad are out working 16 or more hours per day because the minimum wage jobs they have don't provide a living wage? And God help them if they develop a serious disease.

It is so easy for those ensconced in the middle class to dismiss those making less than them as "lazy deadbeats". Tell that to the former factory worker whose job was shipped overseas. Tell that to the single mom working at Walmart (part time with no bennys) and KFC, barely making it from paycheck to paycheck.

Hell--tell it to my sister--she worked for over 20 years as an electronics assembler. The pay wasn't great, but at least she got some bennys for her family. Her husband worked as a heavy equipment operator, which is basically a seasonal job (when the ground is frozen, not much earth gets moved, though he did pick up extra $$ plowing snow, doing odd jobs, etc). From early Spring to late Fall, he made good money, but no benefits. Between the 2 of them, they were able to live modestly with their young daughter. "Between the 2 of them"--that is key--neither one of them made enough $$ to provide a living wage on just one income--it took their combined salaries to make it.

Then the electronics job folded (shipped overseas to maximize profit) and her husband left her for another woman. My sister is no dummy and no lazy slob--while working her assembly job for all those years, she also took on the responsibility of helping the purchasing manager. Based on that experience, she was able to get a job as an assistant purchaser at another company, and started going to night school taking biz classes. Then that job folded (company went belly up). Through a friend, she got a similar position down in [another state]. Then that job died (the company moved its manufacturing operations overseas to maximize profits). Now things were really dire. She looked everywhere for a job--but employment opportunities are few and far between for a 40+ year old woman. She was reduced to going on food stamps, and getting whatever other assistance she could (and after Clinton gutted the federal welfare program, that wasn't much at all--certainly not enough to live on). Our family helped out where we could, but we are not exactly rolling in the dough either, so we were limited in what we could do. Finally, she was able to take advantage of a state program and enrolled in a re-training program. It took her 5 years to get her associate degree in medical office technology because she couldn't go to school full time (she had her daughter to take care of). She graduated cum laude and with a handful of glowing letters of recommendation from her profs and from the company she interned with--and couldn't get a job after over a year of looking--how many companies are going to hire an almost 50 year old woman when they can hire some 21 year old kid?

She finally took a job hounding people who are delinquent on the credit card bills (something she doesn't have to worry about because she declared bankruptcy a long time ago, therefore she has no credit card). The job is psychologically punishing and heartbreaking--she has to call people on the phone and ask them for money, people who are tapped out and can't make ends meet. She can't stand it, but it is the best paying position she was able to find--and even so, she is about a paycheck away from total economic disaster. She is now part of "the working poor". She still has to rely on foodstamps and local food banks. We pooled some $$ together so she could get a better car after her junker's tranny died and she needed $500 for the repairs. If she doesn't have a car she is sunk. She lives in a crappy little trailer on the outskirts of town, her next door neighbor is a drug dealer, and she prays that her daughter (who is now 18) will find a boyfriend and move out, because that would at least lower her living expenses--can you imagine the guilt and anguish that kind of thinking has caused in her?

There used to be concepts ordinary Americans tried to base their lives on, such as "the common good", "the Golden Rule", "social justice", "basic fairness", and "simple decency". It is abundantly clear those concepts are foreign to those on the right, people motivated by greed and fear.

I believe people have a right to accumulate wealth for themselves and their families, but I don't believe anyone has a right to make an obscene amount of $$ while others, who are just as hard working and worthy, struggle from paycheck to paycheck just because the economic structure is stacked against them. That's what it really comes down to--a system which is structured in favor of the wealthy. Is that right? Is that just? The working man contributes just as much to this society as the CEO, but he certainly isn't compensated fairly for his efforts. The essence of Socialism is social justice--all the rest is just details for the remedy.

Since I'd bcc'd Sparkle on that note to Mouse, he now has her email address. He's also a gentleman, and likely did not bcc her on his email to me… although I'm scared to ask. But I think I'll forward it her way myself; I suspect she'll simply delete.

She's also on my list of professional references – no need to provoke her, either. Tiger's cage, short stick… but underemployed. Uh –